About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
be making a bigger case about taxes, spending, shoot for the mountains and not get dragged down on what he says is clearly democrats and the president's turf. >> we have to focus, steve, i believe republicans -- i've said it time and time again -- on taxes. on cutting spending. on saving entitlements. on saving america from this crushing national debt. it grew $6 trillion under barack obama over the past term. and try to avoid some of these other issues. but i hear bobby jindal's new federalism on crack talking about cutting federal employees by three-quarters, et cetera, et cetera. that ain't going to happen. with the changing demographics and where america is and where it's going over the next 20 every 30 years. >> that's the issue. if you separate it, i think the first part not being the stupid party anymore is sort of a no-brainer. why would you go around insulting important interest groups. >> women. >> yeah, the 47%, all that stuff. but then you get to his policy proposals, and i don't think he's in the mainstream of this country when you talk about 25% of the government buildings, c
to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting attacked, we want colin powell on our side. we want moderate republicans on our side. if we're going to be the majority party again, we've got to spend the party. >> are you saying they're pushing her out of the spotlight as part of making the stupid party less stupid? >> what i'm saying is that sarah palin represented a time and place in american politics. and not 2008 so much as 2010. and that time is passing us very quickly. and party leaders are finally understanding that. you know, roger els, i brought up richard haass, roger els before. roger els saw this coming well before the 2012 election. he had realized what had gone wrong. not only at his network but also in the conservative movement of the republican party. that's why he was running out and talking to chris christie saying, get in this race. you can save this party
is the republicans have agreed to raise taxes. they refused to do that for a generation. i think there will be a change on immigration. i think there's potential for bipartisan work on energy. the republican party's got to find its way back to some kind of restoration if it wants to get the white house back if it wants to control the senate again and move beyond the house. the movement they've had on the debt ceiling, democrats would call it gimmicky on some level. but we want to choose our fight difficultly. they want to push the president to deal with the spending problem this government has. you know what? all the polling reflects the fact that they're right. americans want a better economy. they want compromise. they want to cut government spending. so republicans are on the right track there. the question is how do they find a way to pressure the president in a way that's different tanhan what they've done. >> eugene? >> i think the question is whether the republican establishment, such as it is can bring along the rest of the republican party, the tea p
it really explodes. i want them to be more aggressive on tax reform. i want them to cut defense spending much more. i hope the sequestration goes through. >> right. >> i want those defense cuts. and after we do those defense cuts, we need more defense cuts. we need to stop occupying countries for a decade at a time. we've got to stop spending $2 billion a week. i am mr. cut. call me mr. cut. i am more conservative than most republicans on the hill. that said, what gave me comfort yesterday was, i talked to party leaders, and i talked to the rank and file on both sides. they seemed to understand that they've walked into traps time and time again. and they're ready to start playing smart. that's good. >> that's very good. and i think they've had, you know, to your point, joe "cut man" scarborough, they understand that you can have the arguments all day long on cutting and spending, but if you consistently fall into the president's traps on the social issues and on a bunch of other things out there is that distract from the main argument you want to make about the growth and health of the e
some of the romney tax cut proposals. but let's look at this from a progressive perspective -- see, it's starting to hit me -- >> there you go, the vodka. >> you know, as senator coburn says, if we don't do some common sense rational things, in 20 years or in 15 years or even in 10 years, we're going to have a budget that is completely taken up by entitlements in the pentagon. and that will be the only thing we're capable of funding. it's the only thing we'll be able to use the power of some progressive government to try to change. you can't be -- i don't think you can be a really good advocate for education, if at the same time, you also don't make a powerful argument to get our priorities in order and make sure that we're capable, as a society, of responding to what we need to, because we are not fixed into a budget math problem that is so intractable as senator coburn says, that we sort of just drive off the edge. >> and michael, we have no money for discretionary domestic spending to invest in education, infrastructure, r&d. >> right. >> the things that government, we've grown to e
. and there's the overarching question of taxes and spending and entitlements. where do you put the challenges this session faces in terms of history? is this 1981? is this 2009? how are you feeling about the weight of what you have to deal with? >> well, first let me say there is bipartisan agreement that your book on jefferson is absolutely fantastic. >> all right. >> that's among the leadership as well as the rank and file members of the united states senate. >> i appreciate that. >> people are reading it all over the place. from my standpoint, we're really looking at the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. it has to do with our children and our grandchildren's futures. as i travel wyoming and have telephone town hall meetings, the things that really come up, people are saying i'm not worried for me. i'm worried for my kids and grandk grandkids, and are we still going to have america in the future with this kind of debt? who will we owe our future to? >> senator barrasso, i want to ask you about your piece in this morning's "wall street journal." i can reduce it down for e
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)